You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

McGahee is the Broncos' starting RB. I agree with Steve, that it's going to be Steven Jackson that will slow down first. Especially since he might be out of town after this year.

The positive thing about Adrian is that he is 2 years younger than any of the active RBs ahead of him. But, it will all depend upon his durability from here on out. All of them ahead have had durability issues as well in the last couple of years._________________

Thx to Lil Uno!

Last edited by disaacs on Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

so, of the active Runningbacks, who do you guys expect to slow down the quickest?

My guess would be Steven Jackson, and I think its because there is so much wear and tire on the guy from being St. Louis's only true weapon for years.

Until recently, I think that team is going away from Jackson, and more towards Bradford, but I think we'll see a steep decline in production by next year. He already splits with Daryl Richardson.

Next up would be McGahee, but even so, even with his age, I don't think he's been as worn down as Jackson.

Well, Jackson is a year(draft class) behind McGahee, but has a bout 1,500 more yards.. I think St. Louis is doing the right thing by splitting carries with him and Richardson to save Jackson's legs for as long as possible.
McGahee is just one more injury away from being done in my opinion. He has been looking great this year for a 9th year back, but has been injury prone in the past.
Gore is going to start to get less carries in the future also I think. They drafted Hunter and LaMichael James back to back years and picked up B. Jacobs for a reason. They are going to get production out of them._________________

As far as those on the <200 yds list, I loved James Brooks as a RB. He was a do-it-all type, kept his head down and did his job, lunchpail kind of RB. He was sort of under the radar amongst the 80s RBs, but he was solid.

For a Vikings' player comparison, I would sort of compare him to his same era counterpart Darrin Nelson...not flashy, but decent._________________

There seems to be a ton of RBs in that 9,000 to 11,000 range. It seems like the true indicator of a HOF RB should be around 12,000+ yards, around the top 10-15. Peterson is going to have to have realistically 3 more elite seasons after this year to get into that group.

If Peterson continues to run the way he has this season, roughly 110 yards per game, he'll finish his 6th NFL season with 8,500 yards, give or take.

It's pretty amazing to think that despite how dominant Peterson has been in his first 6 season, even if he matched that production in his next 6 years, he'd still be 1,400 yards behind Emmitt Smith. I never thought Smith was all that impressive as a running back, physically, but his longevity was truly impressive.

There seems to be a ton of RBs in that 9,000 to 11,000 range. It seems like the true indicator of a HOF RB should be around 12,000+ yards, around the top 10-15. Peterson is going to have to have realistically 3 more elite seasons after this year to get into that group.

I'd agree. The 12,000+ yard rushing range is loosely around 7-9 years of thousand yard seasons. Realistically, Peterson's body should ensure that he has a career similar in length to Emmitt, but with the way the league has evolved, he may not get the opportunity to run the football as much over the course of his career - what with the increased amount of passing and introduction of the two-back system(s)._________________

"When a team outgrows individual performance and learns team confidence, excellence becomes a reality."
--Joe Paterno.

Frankly, I wouldn't put Smith in the top 10 for talent. He was mostly about longevity and playing with an AWESOME team around him. That said, top11-15 is still amazing.

For as great a runner is, Peterson needs to block better to be considered up among the great players, at least for me. I think he could have more receiving yards if they used him that way....

Wonder what the list looks like when you put in receiving yards? I assume Tomlinson and Faulk move up the list....

Receiving numbers are often overrated for a RB, its more often scheme dependent and QB dependent. The great receiving backs were used more frequently in the passing game, and for backs like Peterson who really arent involved as much, its hard to figure what could be if he played in a different system. Clearly Faulk and Tomlinson are better receivers, but I dont hold receiving numbers in much regard when judging a RB. Its great, but again, certain players will get more opportunities simply by design. Peterson isnt really a bad receiver at all, he seems to be regularly getting around 35-40 catches a year.